In a last-ditch effort to spoil the inevitable confirmation, Democrats are claiming Kavanaugh’s ascension to the bench will leave women, especially minority women, without birth control.

Within minutes, our inboxes were flooded with a coordinated message response to Kavanaugh’s stance on birth control. During today’s proceedings, Kavanaugh referred to The Pill as an abortion-inducing drug. The phrase Democrats seized upon was simply Kavanaugh restating the position of another, not his own view.

The Senators:

This is a red-alarm moment. In his confirmation hearings, #Kavanaugh just called birth control “abortion-inducing drugs.” If you didn't believe it before, believe it now – a woman's constitutional right to abortion AND birth control are both 100% at stake. https://t.co/heXqS2mz83

She the People

Aimee Allison, Democracy in Color President and She the People Founder, released the following statement in response:

“If you are wondering why there is a wave of women of color winning elections and voting in record numbers this year, look no further than Trump’s Kavanaugh circus. No one has more to lose from Donald Trump’s irresponsible pick for the Supreme Court, or any of his other antics, than women of color. If the GOP picks a Supreme Court justice who wants to deny birth control to women, the women of color wave will overtake all of these men in the next election.”

Deb Haaland, New Mexico Congressional Candidate

Deb Haaland: Kavanaugh’s Birth Control Problem Shows Everything is on the Line for Women in America

Albuquerque, NM — Statement from New Mexico Congressional Candidate Deb Haaland on the statement by Brett Kavanaugh in today’s confirmation hearings that birth control pills are ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs:

“Everything is on the line for American women right now. The GOP is working to appoint a man who thinks birth control is abortion and that abortion should be illegal. I urge every member of the Senate to stand with women and vote no on Kavanaugh.”

Women’s March

Cory Booker Joins Kavanaugh Resistance

Women’s March on Kavanaugh Files Release: Cory Booker is a Patriot, Kavanaugh is a Lying Disaster

Washington, DC — Just hours after Women’s March leaders joined women from across the country to occupy Senator Chuck Grassley’s office in protest of the hundreds of thousands of missing Brett Kavanaugh files that the public was denied access to. Now, Senator Cory Booker has risked his position to release a glimpse of those files — giving the public a glimpse into the depth of Kavanaugh’s opposition to equal rights.

Bob Bland, Women’s March Co-President, released the following statement after leaving the sit-in at Senator Grassley’s office:

“Cory Booker is a patriot who joined the Kavanaugh resistance today by releasing these documents. They show that Brett Kavanaugh is not only a disaster, he is a lying disaster. Now, we demand the release of ALL of the secret Brett Kavanaugh files.

“Women will die if Kavanaugh is confirmed — as these documents show. He is deeply opposed to Roe, and a threat to all of us. Trump brought this fight to us, and just like Senator Booker, we’re going to ‘bring it’ in response.

“Senator Booker is modeling exactly what we expect of every member of the Senate: we need to stop Kavanaugh by any means necessary.”

Women’s March and Center for Popular Democracy Action have organized daily protests to #CancelKavanaugh. More than 150 women and allies have been arrested over the last three days voicing their distress over Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to America. Most were arrested for disrupting the hearings themselves, and more for occupying the offices of Senators who were not doing enough to halt the process.

Bob Bland, Women’s March Co-President, released the following statement in response:

“This is a an emergency, all-hands-on-deck moment for women across America. We know Brett Kavanaugh is against abortion, and now we know he thinks birth control is abortion.

“Donald Trump wants to drag women’s rights back a generation or more, to a time where women were forced to bear pregnancy after pregnancy against their will. Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh have picked a fight with American women, and we will take note of exactly who’s side our elected leaders are on. If you vote against our birth control, we will vote you out of office.”

Women’s March and Center for Popular Democracy Action have organized daily protests to #CancelKavanaugh. More than 150 women and allies have been arrested over the last three days voicing their distress over Kavanaugh and the threat he poses to America. Most were arrested for disrupting the hearings themselves, and more for occupying the offices of Senators who were not doing enough to halt the process.

This post was updated post-publishing to clarify the fact that Kavanaugh’s remarks on The Pill were a restatement of someone else’s view, not his own.

Comments

Wait, wasn’t it an “emergency” that Trump was getting to nominate another Justice. Then it was an “emergency” that he nominated Kavanaugh. Now it is an “emergency” because of the phraseology Kavanaugh used. That’s….that’s…..that’s like Triple Emergency Status!

OMG what do we do! Oh, the HUMANITY!!!

Wait….what? They are completely full of crap….Oh, well then….nevermind!

> If you don’t like “murdering children”, then don’t [do it]. Otherwise, what someone else does is none of your FUCKING BUSINESS!

Is this the argument you want to put forward? Because if it isn’t, then you really need to consider the fact that your opponents (with reason) believe abortion to be murder. Just telling them to ignore it is not a reasonable approach.

Though I realize that is your point of view and some others, I don’t believe it is the predominant point of view even on the right anymore. While I agree that it is homicide and should be limited to cases of Rape, Incest, and life of the mother. I don’t think that most on the right would go much past that.

Gremlin1974 – your point of view and some others? You’ve just reduced murder to a popularity contest. If most people are okay with it, then murder away. Is it better to be amoral than immoral? I’m asking you because you believe right and wrong is subjective.

You know, an abortion doesn’t kill a tree, dolphin, dog, spider or clump of random cells. It kills a human being. Society has an interest in making sure people don’t run around killing others. That’s why we have laws on the books punishing people who kill other humans. Why are you in denial about that?

First of all you starting premise that Conservatives want to outlaw abortion is mornonic and false. Abortion is a medically necessary procedure that must be preserved.

Your second moronic premise is that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. It wouldn’t it would simply allow individual states to make their own laws.

Third Moronic premise is that anyone wants to actually overturn Roe. As far as I know there has been no direct challenge to Roe since it was decided. You do realize it would take a case actually making to SCOTUS before they could even touch Roe, right?

Lastly, most conservatives don’t want to outlaw abortion and never have. We just happen to think that teaching responsibility, you know like not getting pregnant in the first place, is better than using a medical procedure as contraception.

No, that is not true. The majority of conservatives, including me, do want to have Roe and Casey overturned, and abortion treated as the homicide it is, lawful only when the homicide of a similarly situated already-born person would also be lawful. In other words, when the baby is endangering its mother’s life and killing it is the only available way to defend her.

And the moment it appeared that there was a solid majority for overturning Roe and Casey several states would race to pass such a law, which would pass straight through the system. I half-expect it as soon as Kavanaugh is confirmed, but I think it more likely that they’ll wait for one of the four solid pro-abortion justices to fall off the perch first.

Sorry for the double post but I am tired and replied to the wrong comment above.

Though I realize that is your point of view and some others, I don’t believe it is the predominant point of view even on the right anymore. While I agree that it is homicide and should be limited to cases of Rape, Incest, and life of the mother. I don’t think that most on the right would go much past that.

No, it is not hyperbolic. If we manage to make abortion illegal then of course a black market for it will arise, just as one existed before Roe, and just as there is one for the murder of already-born people, robbery, and most other crimes. The correct response is so what? Let there be a black market. We will suppress it as much as we can, and we’ll live with whatever we can’t, just as we do with every other black market. Keeping abortion legal just so people who want to murder their babies don’t have to hide makes no more sense than it would to abolish all laws and all police, and thus eliminate all black markets.

I just don’t see it being that bad, honestly, but maybe I am a bit to jaded about the topic.

The legality of abortion is not even the main concern for me, you can make it illegal, but until we start teaching personal responsibility (i.e. not getting pregnant) and treating abortion like a real medical procedure and not just radical contraception these are things that need to happen regardless of the legality of abortion.

Oh lets just go whole hog: Under Kavanaugh – women will (1) not be allowed to wear shoes so that they can never leave the house (2) hold paying jobs of any kind (3) Be seen in public without a burqua (4) drive cars (5) bear less than 6 children. Does that cover it?

“Donald Trump wants to drag women’s rights back a generation or more, to a time where women were forced to bear pregnancy after pregnancy against their will.”
_________________

Let’s see, a generation ago was the year 2000. I was alive then, and I don’t recall women in the U.S. being “forced to bear pregnancy after pregnancy against their will.” Like now, a variety of contraceptives were available at pretty much every drug store in the country, and they were relatively cheap. And like now, Planned Parenthood and other clinics offered cheap abortions to women who didn’t want to bother with contraceptives. Same was true in the 1990’s, same was true in the 1980’s.

So what country (or planet) were these people talking about, because it certainly wasn’t the U.S.

And again, the term “women of color” is racist (coloreds) and marginalizes white women. They are not without color, they are not transparent, and they are not “white” – hold your hand up to this white background to see the difference.

During today’s proceedings, Kavanaugh referred to The Pill as an abortion-inducing drug.

Did he do that? I didn’t listen, but I doubt he would ever make such a mistake. Going purely on the description given here, I’d bet he was being asked about the Hobby Lobby case, which if I recall correctly was not about the Pill but about four specific drugs that cause an already-fertilized egg to abort. The government called these things contraceptives, because they act before there’s a detectable pregnancy, but the objectors regard them as abortifacients.

Kavanaugh was doubtless describing them from the objectors’ point of view, not from his own. It doesn’t matter whether the judge thinks these are contraceptives or abortifacients, what matters is what the party being coerced to povide it thinks.

And the “burden” in the two cases is very different. When discussing barriers to abortion, the test is how difficult the barrier actually is to overcome. But when discussing the first amendment and putting a burden on someone’s conscience, it’s got nothing to do with physical difficulty but with difficulty in justifying it to oneself. So yes, getting a court order is not hard to do, but filling in a form can be very hard to square with ones conscience.

Did he? Not that I can find. Google turned up a tweet with a clip courtesy of PBS, wherein Cruz asked the judge about the “Priest(s) for Life” case. The tweet itself reads “…Kavanaugh APPEARS to refer to birth control pills as “abortion-inducing drugs.” Another I found says “…SEEMS…”.

It bugs the crap out of me how in the retelling of what Kavanaugh actually said the words “appears” and “seems” are dropped from the text. Watching the clips is clear: He DID NOT say what Dem’s accuse him of saying.

He rarely ever expressed a personal opinion. His response to most questions was “I will follow Supreme Court precedent and the precedent on this topic is ….” He did not say that contraceptives were abortifacients. Instead, he repeated the Hobby Lobby holding. He refused to state an opinion on current affairs, he refused to answer questions that might come before the court, he refused to answer hypothetical questions. Lindsey Graham pushed him the hardest on the abortion issue. He refused to offer any pro-life arguments just like he refused to offer any pro Roe v Wage + Casey arguments. He did repeatedly link Wade and Casey together as if you could not read one case without the other.

And nobody claims they’re the same. Even those who object to contraception do not think it’s murder. And I’m not aware of anyone who wants to ban it.

But the pro-abortion lobby pulls a fast one by classing abortifacients taken shortly after fertilization as contraceptives, and then when pro-lifers object to them they accuse them of wanting to ban contraceptives. Well, sure, and if you class heroin as “candy” then you’ll find lots of people who’d like to ban candy.

The Democrats want the wide spread availability of the morning after pill which is indeed inducing the removal of the fertilized egg. Birth control is the general term Democrats elevate but it can employ pre and post fertilization methods.

On a purely evolutionary level, society’s fitness is reflected in the manner by which new persons are added and raised. The “family” and close kin are the foundation of development for most mammals. Even a philosophy of life would treat fetal tissue and reproductive behavior as something falling within the preview of law. A pregnant woman attacked and her late term fetus killed could reasonably warrant a murder charge, especially if that fetus could have lived naturally outside the womb with minimum assistance.

Artificial wombs however are inevitable and natural mothers and fathers will not have absolute control over reproductive technology when they sign their leasing agreement. Iwomb will allow a mother or dad to supply their own real time heart beat, music lists or have AI begin pre-birth learning.

Ironically, gender politics have deconstructed women’s position just as it has men’s. As non-heterosexual couples seek reproductive services, the legal bias that favors female and male birth parents breaks down.

Orwell’s predictions are legendary, but Huxley is perhaps the more serious warning about evolution. There will be an acceptance of genetic modification popularized by new gene therapy solutions for major diseases. Life extension is likely possible by genetically strengthening the mitochondria.

The elite are being disingenuous in their support of abortion. Its not about women at all. Or family. Google is just the forerunner of AID or Artificial Intelligence Doctor.

As for Orwell,

AI is a threat to the English, because its smart enough to uncover all the Fabian secrets. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/06/head-of-british-science-association-ai-greater-concern-than-terrorism/ What Comey and Mueller tag-teamed between the FBI and Lockheed were critical elements of Big Brother. The NSA and various intelligence networks provide a wide reach of Big Data. What is obvious in NYT op-eds, special investigations and massive messaging is that a Deep State does exist to subvert the long held belief in Liberal Democracy. It is presently a far greater threat than AI or abortion.

Weren’t we all suppose to be dead when Net Neutrality was reversed or when those evil Republicans passsed the tax cut bill? How many more histrionics are we going to have to hear from miserable liberals?

Unfortunately at least another 2 years worth, most likely 6 years worth. If you think this is bad just wait until election season 2019 this will look tame. The only thing that would compare is if Satan finally called in RGB’s contract and Trump got to appoint another Justice.

I may be nuts (ok, let’s insert dumb) but it seems to me that depending upon a vote or two on the SCOTUS to preserve some so important as the right to an abortion (hand wave about time periods here) then why the F*** enshrine this right as an amendment to the Constitution? After all, maybe Kavanaugh hates abortion or the justification for it and will end it? Why would any rational person put up with that kind of uncertainty?

I am not going to get into the battle here, about abortion or Roe-V-Wade. I’m pro-choice up to 12 weeks.

The case at issue, that Cruz hinted at – was Priests for Life VS HHS. And without reading the entire case or decision.

The case was based on the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.

The dissent is both logical, and in keeping with PRECEDENT, and has nothing to do with whether or not Kav feels that “The Pill” is an ABORTION DRUG. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with an employer opting out for religious reasons, per established predent.

But now – poor black women will be dying in alleys in Tijuana from botched abortions.

BUNCH OF BULLSHIT (not as much BS as Fauxcahontas calling for a 24thA proceeding against a sitting president).

Roe V Wade SHOULD BE OVERTURNED – not on a RELIGIOUS BASIS – but because the responsibility RESTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. Roe made it ILLEGAL to NOT ALLOW abortion.

The dissent:

Judge Kavanaugh is perplexed as to why, if not for an impermissible reason, the government requires any form at all. Kavanaugh Dissent at 19-20 & n. 5. The form is far from “meaningless,” id., because it acts as “the written equivalent of raising a hand in response to the government’s query as to which religious organizations want to opt out,” and extricates those objectors in a manner consistent with the contraceptive coverage requirement. Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 772 F.3d 229, 250 (D.C.Cir. 2014). Only once an insurer becomes aware of the employer’s religious objection can it take the steps needed to effectuate the opt out, such as: exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s group health plan, prevent the employer’s payment from funding contraception, notify the beneficiaries that the employer plays no role in administering or funding contraceptive coverage, and arrange for separate mailings and accounting. Id. (citing regulatory provisions). Judge Kavanaugh would hold that including the insurer’s identity in the form is unnecessarily restrictive of religious exercise because, extending our metaphor, he says it requires the objecting employer “both to raise its hand and to point to its insurer.” Kavanaugh Dissent at 25 n. 11. But it is more apt to say that, if the employer opts to raise its hand where the insurer cannot see it (i.e. via the alternative notice delivered to the government rather than the insurer, see 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(c)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(ii)), the government must be in a position promptly to communicate the religious objection to the insurer, or else the employer’s insurance plan will continue to include contraceptive coverage. An insurer that is kept in the dark about an employer’s religious objections cannot do what it must to honor the opt out.

The topic was the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby had provided, for many years, 16 different contraceptives through the insurance they paid for for their employees. What they objected to was 4 “abortifacient” types of birth control that typically (though not always) function AFTER conception.

Plan-B being one of them. Which the FDA and the drug’s own manufacturer classify as an abortifacient – it induces abortion.

He was NOT talking about “The Pill” or any other contraceptive (a word that defines itself – meaning it prevents conception).

That’s what I thought. Just from knowing what the case had been about, I knew this must have been what he said. The problem is that at the time Democrats and reporters deliberately obscured what it was about, so that people who weren’t paying close attention probably did think it was about contraceptives.

I have been told and have read that if I kill a woman who is pregnant, then I will be charge with two homicides – the woman’s and the unborn child. If this is true, then how does the Left account for this double standard when it comes to abortion? People need to remember that the decision to get an abortion does not only affect the woman, but it is a decision that affects the child as well.

They don’t account for it, they bitterly oppose such laws, in those states where they exist, precisely because they undermine the philosophical basis for permitting abortion. But the courts have refused to strike them down, since they don’t directly impact the supposed right of abortion.

Some leftists who are more honest about their position don’t oppose these laws, because their true attitude is that the baby’s legal status depends on the mother’s intentions. If she wants it then it’s a person and killing it is murder, but if she doesn’t want it then it’s just a blob of tissue with no rights. Thus their opposition to “born alive” laws, since if the mother wants a dead baby she’s entitled to one. But that’s a difficult position to explain to the public, so they try to keep it hidden.

This is a great blog. I learned a lot from reading the various discussions. I only see one item missing from the discussions or I missed it. The key item missing from Roe VS Wade is the definition of when conception takes place, IE when does life begin. That should be the task the SCOTUS takes on in the next challenge to Roe V Wade. Then we can hopefully eliminate the use of Roe V Wade as a tool for contraception. If I remember right the original ruling tried to eliminate the use of this decision as Contraception tool.

AZTEJAS: us discussions. I only see one item missing from the discussions or I missed it. The key item missing from Roe VS Wade is the definition of when conception takes place, IE when does life begin.

The point of conception is not in dispute. Rather, Roe v. Wade balances the right of the woman to self-determination with the concern of society to protect the unborn. The basic finding is that women have the right to abortion before viability, but the state can impose reasonable restrictions. After viability, the state can proscribe abortion, as long as there are exceptions for incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.

kenoshamage: I don’t understand all the outrage about “contraception” – isn’t that what the left uses abortion for?

When your preconceptions are challenged by facts, you might want to reconsider your preconceptions. Access to contraception was supported by liberals, but opposed by conservatives, until the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut which found that state bans on contraceptives violated the right to privacy.

Aarradin: Plan-B being one of them. Which the FDA and the drug’s own manufacturer classify as an abortifacient – it induces abortion.

Plan-B can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, but more typically works to prevent ovulation or fertilization. That’s why it’s important to take it immediately, such as when a condom breaks. Once the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, Plan-B will no longer be effective.

Several methods of chemical contraception, along with the IUD, are are classed as abortifacients. It has to do with the mechanism by which they operate. Essentially, anything that prevents implantation is technically known as an abortifacient.

It is significant to me that the hyperventilating over whatever Kavanaugh said does not include any direct quote. That is a sign that whatever he said was not what they want to say he said.

I’ve been through enough of this with DJT, already. I am not chasing this rabbit.

Valerie: Several methods of chemical contraception, along with the IUD, are are classed as abortifacients. It has to do with the mechanism by which they operate. Essentially, anything that prevents implantation is technically known as an abortifacient.

No. *Technically*, they aren’t considered abortifacients unless they cause the loss of an implanted fetus, implantation, according to medical professionals, being when pregnancy beings. However, we understand you consider the fertilized egg to be when life is deserving of protection.

IUDs and many other types of birth control work primarily by preventing ovulation or by preventing fertilization. Hormonal IUDs work by thickening the cervical mucus, which prevents the sperm from reaching the egg. Copper IUDs work by disabling sperm before they reach the egg.

Valerie: It is significant to me that the hyperventilating over whatever Kavanaugh said does not include any direct quote.

Brett Kavanaugh: “they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”

Kavanaugh was restating the position of the Catholic group, Priests for Life, but the claim was false. He should have addressed this point. By not doing so, he left the impression he agreed with the false claim. Indeed, the false claim formed a basis for his judicial decision. Now, Priests for Life can believe whatever they want, but the bread that is the transubstantiated body of Christ still has to pass food safety regulations.

Announcement

Support this Blog

One Time Donation

(Any Amount)

Monthly Donation

LIN_SeventhWindow

Newsletter

Morning Insurrection

Get the latest from Legal Insurrection each morning plus exclusive Cyber Insurrection and Author Quick Hits!